Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Yes, there is a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court proceedings. In court proceedings, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the highest legal standard of proof. This means that the facts presented must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt about the outcome of the case. In securities arbitration law in Tennessee, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”. This is a more lenient standard, which requires a greater than 50% probability that the facts presented are true. This means that the facts do not have to be as convincing as in court proceedings, but the fact finder must be more than 50% sure that the presented facts are true. In addition to the different standards of proof, arbitration and court proceedings also have different rules of evidence. For example, in court cases it is often necessary to provide expert testimony in order to establish the facts, while in arbitration the parties may be able to present their own testimony and evidence without the need for witnesses or experts. Overall, arbitration and court proceedings have some similarities, but the standards of proof and types of evidence are different. The standards of proof and types of evidence used in each will determine the outcome of the proceedings.

Related FAQs

Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts